Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 45174-3-II Order Publishing Opinion.pdf

influenced his employer' s decision to terminate him. Staub, 131 S. Ct. at 1190. The Court held

that " if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the

supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the

ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA." 6 Staub, 131 S. Ct. at

1194 ( footnotes omitted).

The Court also stated that an independent investigation does not necessarily relieve the

employer of liability for an adverse employment action. Staub, 131 S. Ct. at 1193. "[ I] f the

6 We applied subordinate bias liability as it is articulated in Staub in City of Vancouver v. Wash.
Pub. Emp' tRelations Comm' n, 180 Wn. App. 333, 325 P. 3d 213 ( 2014).

13
             

45174 -3 -II

employer' s investigation results in an adverse action for reasons unrelated to the supervisor' s

original biased action .. then the employer will not be liable." Staub, 131 S. Ct. at 1193. " But

if the independent investigation relies on facts provided by the biased supervisor —as is necessary

in any case of cat' s -paw liability —then the employer ( either directly or through the ultimate

decision [ ] maker) will have effectively delegated the factfinding portion of the investigation to

the biased supervisor." Staub, 131 S. Ct. at 1193.

Here, Boyd presented evidence of Maddox' s animus. He testified that, after he told her to

stop harassing him she became hostile and threatened to " make sure [ he] can' t work in any of the
50 states." 8 RP at 983. Subsequently, Maddox involved herself in investigating the complaints

against Boyd. Although Cook -Gomez was assigned to investigate Boyd' s failure to assess the